A meta-analysis of the effects of dual-task training on cognitive function in stroke patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) affects ~40% of survivors, hindering recovery. Dual-task training (combining cognitive and motor tasks) may help, but its superiority over single-task training or usual care remains unclear. This study examines whether dual-task training improves cognitive function more than (1) single-task training or (2) usual rehab/control, and whether effects vary by intervention duration. Methods Keywords were used to search Chinese and English databases. The search period was up to 15 October 2023. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies comparing the effects of dual-task training and single-task training or blank control on improving cognitive impairment in stroke patients were included and the quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane collaboration’s risk assessment tool. The effect indicators were evaluated based on fixed-effects or random-effects models. Results A total of 15 RCT studies were included. The results of the studies showed that there was a significant difference in mini-mental state examination scores in the dual-task training group compared with the control group ( p < 0.0001). At intervention time >6 weeks trail making test-A scores were lower compared with controls ( p < 0.00001). After intervention time >4 weeks, there was a significant difference in digit span test-backward scores compared with controls ( p = 0.0003). There was a significant difference in digit span test-forward scores compared with controls ( p = 0.0001) after >4 weeks of intervention. There was a significant difference in Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores compared with controls in elderly patients with insignificant cognitive deficits post-stroke ( p < 0.00001) and patients with significant cognitive impairment following a stroke ( p < 0.00001). Conclusion Dual-task training is more effective than conventional rehabilitation in improving PSCI, but the aspects of improvement may be limited by the duration of the intervention, the number and quality of included studies and the differences in cognitive function, motor tasks and so on. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO , CRD42023393550.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".